DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, directed to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 21, in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19, 22-24, &26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/13/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “when the substrate is a carbon substrate,” in lines 1-2. It appears that “when” is a grammatical error and should be “wherein.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “while maintaining morphology and crystallinity of the metal oxide surface without inducing surface amorphization,” in lines 3-4. It is recommended that the limitation is rewritten as while maintaining morphology and crystallinity of the metal oxide surface and without inducing surface amorphization,” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the metal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the metal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (ACS Nano 2017, 11, pp. 4825-4831).
With regard to claims 1 and 21, Gao et al. teaches a catalyst comprising CuOxCly nanocubes dispersed on a Cu foil (pp. 4826, left col., lines 11-27) with reduced O2- ion content after treatment with H2 plasma (pp. 2826, left col., lines 28-36 & Fig. 1, first row). Provided LMM XPS data indicates that in the H2-plasma treated nanocubes, Cu2O, copper (i) oxide, is the predominant species (see Table S2, wherein Cu2O comprises 71% of the sample) and that the bulk of the copper is reduced (Cu0 or Cu+) as compared to the untreated nanocubes where Cu2+ in the form of CuCl predominates (see Fig. 2, H2 vs. AP). While not explicitly described as oxygen vacancy defects in a copper oxide, Gao et al. teaches the surface plasma treatment decreases the surface-level oxygen ions, reduces surface-level copper, and the plasma treatments were utilized to control defect density (pp. 4829, lines 20-23). It is the examiner’s position that the loss of oxygen ions and reduction of copper ions would result in vacancy defects in the material’s surface, and therefore the H2-plasma treated sample of Gao et al. reads to the instantly claimed metal oxide having engineered surface defects in the form of oxygen vacancy defects. Additionally, the process limitation regarding flame spray pyrolysis is noted. However, when the examiner has found the same or substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process of making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
With regard to claim 2, Gao et al. states that the plasma-treated Cu nanocube samples exhibit high geometric current density compared to a Cu foil and the difference is attributed to high surface area of the roughened Cu nanocube samples (pp. 4827, right col., lines 18-22). The work of Gao et al. is drawn to electrochemical catalysis (see Introduction & Methods, Electrochemical Measurements), and therefore it is assumed references to surface area are being made to electrochemical surface area (ECSA). Therefore, the H2-plasma treated Cu nanocube sample which reads to claim 1, is in “high surface area form” as instantly claimed.
With regard to claim 3, Gao et al. describes the catalysts as comprising nanocubes with an average edge length of 250-300 nm distributed across a foil surface with no evidence of large-scale agglomeration (pp. 4826, left col., lines 11-17). As the nanocubes are predominantly copper oxide while the foil surface is predominantly metallic copper or copper chloride (pp. 4826, left col., lines 21-27), the metal oxide catalyst is nanoscale particles on a metallic substrate, i.e. metal oxide nanoparticles as instantly claimed.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Gao et al. teaches that the H2-plasma treated nanocubes are made of copper, and specifically copper (I) oxide as shown by XPS analysis (see Table S2, sample ‘H2 4 min’). Copper is a transition metal, and therefore the nanocube catalyst of Gao et al. reads to the limitations of both claims 4 (the metal is a transition metal) and 5 (the metal is copper).
With regard to claim 7, Gao et al. teaches that the Cu nanocubes are evenly distributed across a Cu foil surface (pp. 4826, left col., lines 13-17). Therefore, the H2-plasma treated Cu nanocubes are supported on a solid substrate as instantly claimed.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Gao et al. teaches that the oxygen ion content is decreased (i.e. the formation of surface oxygen vacancy defects) as a result of a H2-gas plasma treatment (pp. 4826, left col., lines 28-35 & Table S1, sample ‘H2 4 min’). Therefore, Gao et al. teaches the instantly claimed limitations that the engineered surface defects are created by plasma treatment (claim 10) and that the plasma treatment uses a hydrogen plasma (claim 11).
With regard to claim 14, Gao et al. teaches that the H2 plasma treatment of the nanocubes was applied for 4 minutes (pp. 4826, line 30), which is within the instantly claimed range of 3-7 minutes.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and as evidenced by Horlyck et al. (Materials 2019, 12, 2756).
With regard to claim 13, Gao et al. teaches that short plasma treatment, such as the 4 minute H2 plasma treatment, does not significant modify the morphology of the as-prepared samples and only effects ion content (i.e. O2- content; pp. 2826, left col., lines 28-32). Gao et al. teaches that the roughness factor of the Cu nanocubes treated with H2 plasma for 4 minutes has a significantly similar roughness factor (33.5) to the as prepared Cu nanocubes (35.8; see Table S4) which is in contrast to the effect of O2 plasma and Ar plasma treatment (24.1 and 21.2 roughness factor respectively). Gao et al. is otherwise silent as to the crystallinity of the H2 plasma treated nanocubes. However, Horlyck et al. teach that a He plasma treatment on SiO2/TiO2 nanoparticles (30 mL/min 99.999% He; 5-10 min, 15.0 +/- 0.1 W; see Section 2.1) with application times <20 minutes did not result in any discernable change in peak positions in XRD patterns which would indicate a change in crystal morphology or crystallite size, and peak broadening in the Raman spectra of plasma-treated samples for <20 min was attributed to the formation of oxygen vacancies rather than a degradation of crystallinity (pp. 5, lines 9-15; pp. 6, 4-14). Horlyck et al. further teaches that the surface area of the samples is maintained after plasma treatment (pp. 9, lines 28-30), which indicates that surface amorphization has not occurred. It is the examiner’s position that the H2 plasma treatment of Gao et al. (400 mTorr H2, 4 min, 20 W; see Methods) which is taught to not affect sample morphology and is suggested to not alter surface characteristics would, like the plasma treatments of Horlyck et al., not induce a loss in crystallinity or cause surface amorphization as instantly claimed. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the H2 plasma treated Cu nanocubes of Gao et al. would maintain the morphology, crystallinity, and surface characteristics (i.e. not experience surface amorphization) of the as-prepared Cu nanocubes as instantly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, pp. 6986-6994).
With regard to claim 8, Gao et al. teaches that the H2 plasma-treated Cu nanocubes, which comprise ~71% Cu2O (Table S2), are supported on a Cu foil substrate (pp. 4826, left col., lines 11-27), not a carbon substrate. However, Kim et al. teaches the deposition of branched and cubic copper oxide nanoparticles on Ketjen black carbon (i.e. conductive carbon black) to form conductive electrode materials (pp. 6987, right col., lines 18-19). Kim et al. teach that both cubic and branched copper nanoparticles had a strong interaction with the conductive carbon materials, as CuO nanoparticles maintained their morphology after 12 h under reaction conditions and the cubic Cu2O particles maintained their cube framework attached to the conductive carbon (pp. 6991, left col., lines 7-15). Kim et al. also concludes that the carbon support played a strong role in determining C2 product selectivity for the CO2RR reaction (pp. 6992, right col., lines 52-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copper nanocubes deposited on copper foil taught by Gao et al. by replacing the copper foil substrate with a conductive carbon substrate as taught by Kim et al. in order to impart increased catalyst stability on the active copper nanoparticles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Madler et al. Controlled synthesis of nanostructured particles by flame spray pyrolysis. Journal of Aerosol Science 2002, 33(2), pp. 369-389.
Gao et al. Enhancing CO2 Electroreduction with the Metal–Oxide Interface. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139(16), pp. 5652-5655.
Mistry et al. Highly selective plasma-activated copper catalysts for carbon dioxide reduction to ethylene. Nature Communications 2016, 7, 12123.
Wang et al. Unveiling the Activity Origin of a Copper-based Electrocatalyst for Selective Nitrate Reduction to Ammonia. Angew. Chem, Int. Ed. 2020, 59, pp. 5350-5354.
Zhuang et al. Oxygen vacancies in metal oxides: recent progress towards advanced catalyst design. Science China Materials 2020, 63, pp. 2089-2118.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170014813 A1, published 2017.
Chinese Patent Pub. No. 108543530 A, published 2018.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
